Military Bounty Land
Granting military bounty land in the United States to encourage
enlistments or reward previous service began in colonial times,
but its legislative heyday was 1788-1855, though claims were still
dribbling into the federal government in the 1960s. Genealogists
find bounty-land records especially attractive because they serve
the dual role of locating persons in time and place and of proving
military service. Applications sometimes contain a wealth of information,
especially when heirs claimed lands.

Colonial legislatures gave land for military service, such as in
the Narragansett campaign of King Philip's War, 1675-76, but these
were mostly private acts passed to reward meritorious service to
the colony. In 1701, Virginia passed an act promising 200 acres
free ofquitrents for twenty years to those who would make armed
settlements on the Indian frontier. The Crown's Proclamation of
1763 ordered the colonies to give bounty land for service in the
French and Indian War to "reduced" (indigent) officers and to British
Army privates mustered out in the colonies who intended to remain there.
This did not include militia units. In 1776, Congress
promised Hessian deserters fifty acres but had few takers. Also
in 1776, the Congress promised bounty land to soldiers of the con-
tinental line, with privates and noncommissioned officers to get 100
acres, captains 300 acres, and other ranks various amounts. States
that likewise promised, or afterwards gave, bounty lands were
Massachusetts (with Maine), New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland,
Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia.
The states not giving Revolutionary bounty lands were"New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Delaware".

North Carolina was the most generous with its 640 acres (a square mile)
to a private in the continental line. Maryland gave the
smallest amount with fifty acres to a private, but Maryland also
had very little western land to give.
Map 7-4 and Table 7-1
show the locations of the military reserves and the acreage for each rank
for each state and the federal government. Massachusetts grants
were in Maine, but in no specific reserve; privates who got a
100-acre warrant from the federal government were not eligible
for the state's. Soldiers of the continental line in other states could
take both the federal and their state land bounties. (See the state
summaries at the end of this chapter for brief references to bounty-land records.
For Massachusetts, see Maine.) Paul Gates's 1968 History of Public Land Law Development discusses aspects of various
state grants. He says, without elaborating, that Connecticut gave
bounty land; but this seems to refer to the Fire Lands in Ohio granted
to individuals burned out in the Revolution rather than to grants
to soldiers. [15]
Virginia is discussed below because its bounty-land
records are widely scattered, some in the National Archives.

Congress was slow to redeem its promise of land for its soldiers.
In 1788, it directed that bounty-land warrants should start being
issued to those applying. But the U.S. Military District in Ohio,
the only federal lands where federal Revolutionary warrants could
be used until 1830, did not open until 1796 — a full fifteen years after
Yorktown. A planned second federal reserve at the south end of
Illinois was not created; instead, the district in Ohio was enlarged.
The Ohio Company and John Cleves Symmes in 1787 and 1788
had purchased millions of Ohio acres on credit from Congress and
were permitted to pay one-seventh of the price in federal bounty-
land warrants. Therefore, land offices of the two speculations ac-
cepted some federal warrants, the earliest locales where they could
be used. Congress also created three military reserves for veterans
of the War of 1812, but there were no federal reserves after these
three in Illinois, Arkansas, and Missouri. Warrants usable in the
Virginia and United States military districts in Ohio were made
redeemable by scrip acts in 1830 and 1832 respectively, in any GLO
land offices in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. In 1842, all federal bounty-land
warrants were made good for purchases at any GLO land office.

The 1788 act stipulated that warrants were assignable, meaning
the soldier could sell his warrant and not wait to take the land.
This created an instant market in bounty warrants and allowed land
speculators to accumulate large quantities of warrants and land.
Paul Gates shows that fewer than one soldier (or his heirs) in ten
got land by using his warrant under any federal bounty-land act.
Since few soldiers actually used their warrants to patent land, patents
and land-entry case files are much less valuable than the warrants
and the warrant applications in locating a soldier's military service.

Most soldiers sold their rights, using the back of the warrant to
assign it to the buyer, who might in turn assign the warrant to
another buyer. Sometimes the assignment left the buyer's name
blank, to be filled in by the last purchaser. The warrant certificates
issued to Mexican War veterans were folios, with the insides and
back unprinted so they could be used for assignments.

The warrant market was big business, especially when war-
rants were no longer restricted to military reserve lands. Major
brokerage firms dealt extensively in warrants, buying in the Eastern
states and selling to Western land brokers and settlers. Financial
newspapers in the boom years of the 1850s frequently carried price
quotations. The government set a price ceiling from 1820 by charg-
ing a flat $1.25 per acre for most of its lands. The average market
price peaked at about $1.20 an acre in 1854-55 for 160-acre war-
rants, just before the market was flooded by the act of 1855.16
More warrants were used in Iowa than any other state, and it is
estimated that half of Iowa was purchased with bounty-land
warrants.

The federal government gave no bounty land for service after
1855, but Union veterans received special homestead rights: in
1870, the right to claim 160 acres within railroad grant areas (other
homesteaders got only 80) and in 1872, the right to deduct their
length of war service from the five-year residency needed to prove
a homestead.

To get a federal bounty-land warrant it was necessary, under
any act from 1788 to 1855, for the soldier or heirs to apply. The
warrant applications are in Record Group 15 in the Military Ser-
vice Records section in the downtown Washington building of the
National Archives. The surrendered warrants (those used to obtain land)
are in land-entry case files of the patentees in Record
Group 49 in the Washington National Records Center, Suitland,
Maryland. The case file categories are briefly described in Harry
P. Yoshpe and Philip P. Brower, Preliminary Inventory of the Land-Entry
Papers of the General Land Office (Washington, D.C.: National Archives, 1949), pp. 7-9,
called Inventory No. 22 for short.
The patents, obtained by using land warrants, were like any other
GLO patents. The official copies are in the Eastern States Office
of the Bureau of Land Management in Alexandria, Virginia. In seek-
ing the various records related to a federal bounty-land warrant,
the researcher should try to leam the warrant number, the acreage
claimed, and the act used, e.g., warrant ^8256, forty acres, act
of 1852. This could be unnecessary information since the National
Archives may handle the searching, but having this information in
full or part allows for more precise requests, thereby increasing
the chances of success. The best source is the bounty-land applica-
tion files.

The following summary of the various warrant acts comes from
Inventory No. 22, to which explanatory remarks are added. The
number of warrants issued gives the researcher an idea of how
many soldiers or their heirs applied under each act. Reference citations
are to the respective acts of Congress. Citation 2 Stat. 236
means volume 2 of U.S. Statutes at Large, p. 236.
M-804 means National Archives microfilm publication M-804.

1. Revolutionary War Warrants in the U. S. Military District in Ohio.

09 Jul 1788

Continental Congress

#1-14220 Journals 34:307

16 Mar 1803

2 Stat. 236

#1-272

15 Apr 1806

2 Stat. 378

#273-2500

2. Federal & State Bounty - Land acreage, Revolutionary War

Rank

US

GA.1.

MD.

MA.2.

NY.

NY.3.

NC.

PA.

SC.

VA.5.

Major General

1,100

50

100

5,500

25,000 4

2,000

100

15,000

Brig. General

850

1,195

50

100

4,200

12,000

1,500

100

10,000

Colonel

500

1,150

50

100

2,500

2,000

7,200

1,000

100

6,667

Lieutenant Colonel

450

1,035

50

100

2,500

2,000

5,760

800

100

6,000

Major

400

920

50

100

2,000

2,000

4,800

600

100

5,333

Captian

300

575-690

50

100

1,500

1,500

3,840

500

100

4,000

Lieutenant

200

460

50

100

1,000

1,000

2,560

400

100

2,666

Ensign

150

460

50

100

1,000

1,000

2,560

300

100

2,665

Non-Commissioned

NCO Officer

100

345

50

100

500

500

1,000

250

100

200-400

Private

100

230-287 1/2

50

100

500

500

640

200

100

100-300

1. Georgia sometimes distinguished between the same rank in the state
militia and the continental (federal) line. The private in the continental line
received less than in the militia, but a captain in the continental line got
the larger share. Refugees from Georgia who were forced to flee their
homes and then joined the North or South Carolina militia received far
greater proportional grants: privates 575, sergeants 632 1/2, lieutenants
747 1/2, and captains 977 1/2 acres. The Georgia militia disintegrated under
the British occupation, so Georgia rewarded those citizens who fought
in neighboring states.

2. Massachusetts gave 100 acres only to those not receiving the
100 acre federal grant.

3. New York, the first column shows the grant to all under the Resolution of 1783.
Fhe second column contains the grants to the two regiments under the Act of 1781.

4. North Carolina, specific grant to General Nathanael Greene.

5. Virginia, Privates and Non-Commissioned officers enlisting for three years
ivere given twice as much as those enlisting for shorter periods. This was
ater increased to 300 acres for all privates remaining till the end of the
var. An additional increase of fifty acres was given for each year's service
)ver six. These last grants were made retroactive.

Source:
Paul V. Lutz, "Land Grants for Service in the Revolution," New York
Historical Society Quarterly 48 (1964): 230. Used with permission.

Initially these assignable warrants were redeemable only for
land in the U.S. Military District in Ohio. Soldiers of the continental
line from any state received 100 acres (privates and NCOs),
150 (ensigns), 200 (lieutenants), 300 (captains), 400 (majors), 450
(lieutenant colonels), 500 (colonels), 850 (brigadier generals), and
1,100 (major generals). The initial minimum grants in the district
were for quarter townships of the five-mile dimensions, that is,
five miles to a side or 16,000 acres, thereby requiring warrantees
to band together through an agent to reach 4,000 acres or sell out
to get some value from their warrants. By 1800, lots down to 100
acres were available. In 1832, all entries in the district were ended,
and those still holding warrants were allowed to trade them for scrip
negotiable at GLO land offices in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. From
1842, such scrip was accepted at any GLO land office.

Many warrant application files for the 1788 act are destroyed.
Where the warrantee's name is known, a substitute card was made
with the note "no papers." These cards and the surviving application
files are interfiled with the surviving Revolutionary pension
files, all filmed on M804, "Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty Land
Warrant Application Files," in 2,670 rolls. This series is indexed for
pensions and warrantees in National Genealogical Society,
Index of Revolutionary War Pension Applications in the National Archives
(Washington, D.C.: National Genealogical Society, 1976).

Congress, to aid soldiers who had not met the deadline of the
1788 act, passed a time extension in 1803 amended 1806. The warrants
of these acts are numbered in one sequence. Nearly all surrendered
warrants from numbers 1-6912 of the 1788 act were
destroyed. Surviving surrendered warrants of the 1788,1803, and
1806 acts are filed in land entry case files and are filmed on M829,
"U.S. Revolutionary War Bounty Land Warrants Used in the U.S.
Military District of Ohio and Related Papers (Acts of 1788, 1803,
1806)" in sixteen rolls. Since patents were rarely placed in the case
files, the U.S. Military District land entry case files usually contain
just the surrendered warrant. The files are filmed sequentially and
missing warrants were either lost, misplaced, or never surrendered
for land. The few surrendered for scrip under the 1832 and later
acts are in that series, but cross referenced on M829. On Roll 1
of M829 are two ledgers indexed in Smith's Federal Land Series,
vol. 2, once used to record the issuance of warrants. Roll 1 of M829
also has indexes to the ledgers done and/or filmed by the National
Archives. The pamphlet accompanying M829 describes these
records and is available upon request from the National Archives.

3. War of 1812 Warrants in U.S. Military Districts in IL., AR, & MO.

24 Dec 1811

2 Stat. 669

#1-28085 for 160 acres

11 Jan 1812

2 Stat. 672

#1-28085 for 160 acres

06 May 1812

2 Stat. 729

#1-28085 for 160 acres

27 Jul 1842

5 Stat. 597

#1-28085 for 160 acres

10 Dec 1814

3 Stat. 147

#1-1101 for 320 acres

The acts of 1811-12 promised 160 acres to privates and NCO's
who enlisted in regiments raised by Congress and who served for
five years, unless discharged sooner or killed. The 1814 act doubled
the acreage for those who enlisted after 10 December 1814. Officers
were given no bounty lands until the acts of 1850-55. The
warrants were not legally assignable except by inheritance, and
the GLO retained the warrant certificates, issuing the veteran a
certificate of notification. These warrants were redeemable only
in military reserves in Illinois, Arkansas, and Missouri until the act
of 1842 made them redeemable at any GLO land office. The warrants
became legally assignable in 1852.

These War of 1812 warrants, preserved mostly in bound
volumes, are filmed on M848, "War of 1812 Military Bounty Land
Warrants 1815-1858," in fourteen rolls. Patentees in the Arkansas
and Missouri reserves are indexed on Roll 1, plus Illinois patentees
with C and D surnames. The Illinois State Library's computer index
to all federal patents in Illinois should include the military reserve.
Since War of 1812 warrants were not legally assignable until 1852,
the patent indexes should serve as indexes to prior warrantees,
though Gates shows (pp. 263-70) that the land speculators got large
parts of the reserves, presumably by having the patents processed
in the names of the warrantees. This means many veterans patented
land they probably never saw. The pamphlet accompanying M848
describes these records and is available upon request from the National
Archives. Aside from these filmed warrants, there should
also be unfilmed warrant application files and land entry case files
in Record Groups 15 and 49 respectively.

4. Applications for Bounty-land Scrip

30 May 1830

4 Stat. 422

#1-1994

13 jul 1832

4 Stat. 578

#1-1994

02 Mar 1833

4 Stat. 665

#1-225

03 Mar 1835

4 Stat. 770

#1-970

31 Aug 1842

10 Stat. 143

#1-1699

The land available for patenting in the Virginia and U. S. military
districts ran out long before all the outstanding warrants were
redeemed, so Congress issued scrip for the remaining warrants.
At first good only in GLO land offices in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois,
the scrip, printed in acreage denominations, was good at any GLO land office from 1842.

5. Mexican War Bounty-Land Warrants.

11 Feb 1847

9 Stat. 125

#1-7585 for 40 acres
#1-80689 for 160 acres

Congress, in the Mexican War, authorized ten regiments and offered
privates and NCO's (but not officers) 160 acres for serving
one year or more and 40 acres for serving less than a year. Alternately,
the veteran could apply for $100 or $25 in scrip at 6 percent
interest, acceptable for any payment due to the U.S. government.
(This dollar scrip was different from the acreage scrip listed in entry
4 above.) There were no military districts created for Mexican
War bounty land, the warrants being redeemable at any GLO land
office. They were assignable. As usual, few warrantees or their
heirs actually patented land using their warrants. The surrendered
warrants are in the land entry case files of the patentees. The best
finding aid to Mexican War warrantees is their warrant application files.

The acts of 1850-55 were not to encourage enlistments but to
reward former service. The act of 1850 extended bounty land to
officers and enlisted men who had not previously received land and
who had served in any war since 1790, including the Indian wars.
Nine months' service brought 160 acres, four months' service 80
acres, and one month's service 40 acres. Since there was initial
confusion over whether the act made warrants assignable, the GLO
commissioner later ruled that it did not. The act of 1852 explicitly
made them assignable and extended the 1850 act to militiamen who
served after 1812.

The 1855 act extended bounty land privileges even further by
making 160 acres the minimum entitlement and reducing service
to fourteen days or even less. Those who traveled 1,200 miles in
service were eligible even if they served less time. A veteran or
his heirs who had previously received fewer than 160 acres could
apply for the balance. Eligibility was extended to chaplains, wagon
masters, militia rangers, and volunteers of certain campaigns such
as Kings Mountain, the Nickojack Campaign in Tennessee, and the
Cook County volunteers in the Black Hawk War. An act of 14 May
1856 extended the 1855 benefits to naval veterans and any Revolutionary service.

Using these figures as given by Inventory No. 22 and omitting
scrip because it redeemed already issued warrants, the warrant
totals issued by these categories of acts are:

Revolutionary War

16,720

War of 1812

29,186

Mexican War

88,274

Acts of 1850-55

464,419

Total

598,599

Considering that 77.6 percent of these bounty-land warrants are
in the miscellaneous categories of the 1850-55 acts and that each
warrant should have an application file with the veteran's documentation
of service or kin documenting their relationship to him, how
do genealogists locate what they need?

National Archives Trust Fund (NATF) Form 80 should be used
to request pre World War I pension and military service records
and pre 1856 bounty-land warrant application files. It costs $5
prepaid [in 1983] for each category ($15 for all three) and is a bargain.
If the requester has:
(1) such definite information as service in a specific war or unit,
(2) a soldier of uncommon name, or
(3) extensive background information on the person sought, there should
be few unanticipated problems. But many requests are fishing expeditions
with little background identification on men with ordinary
names, or the genealogist attempts to compile branches of a large
family by plowing page-by-page through collections. It is difficult
to see how these problems can be solved comprehensively by mail
with much confidence. In such cases, a personal search or the services
of an agent already in Washington, D.C., should be considered.

A special problem is fraudulent warrant applications, especially
where heirs claim a soldier's rights. Mrs. Ellen Reed and her two
children received bounty-land warrant #61,656 in 1849 for the Mexican War
service of Richard Reed, private, Company D, First
U.S. Artillery Regiment. Two months later, Richard's mother applied
as his next-of-kin and showed that, on his supposed marriage
day in Mississippi, he was fishing on the Kennebec in Maine. Ellen's
warrant was cancelled and a new one issued to the mother. [17] This
problem of potential fraud is large enough to be a major contaminant.
Gates notes 59,190 warrants for which caveats against delivery
had been filed by 1856, thus suspending further action on
patenting.18 Why waste research time worrying about such
obscure points? Double and triple proofs and forays into collateral
lines may seem like expensive overkill; but experienced researchers
know that solutions often come from unpredictable quarters.

For example, bounty-land eligibility for service in the War of
1812 was first limited to able-bodied enlisted men age eighteen to
forty-five. Mrs. Abigail O'Flyng's husband and three sons had
served, two sons had been killed, yet none of these four was eligible
for bounty land. Her husband had been over forty-five, one son
was under eighteen, and the two dead sons had been promoted
to officers just before they died. The Abigail O'Flyng Act of 1816
ended the age restrictions and allowed enlisted men promoted to
officers to receive land. Also, by private act of Congress, her husband
received 480 acres, the youngest son 160 acres, and the heirs
of the dead sons their half pay for five years.[19]

This case tests a genealogist's expertise. Does he/she understand
the scope and intent of the record group searched? Nearly
all government records federal, state, and local are created as
a result of statutes which should be read. Would a check of bounty land
applications filed have "proved" that none of the four O'Flyng
men served in the war? Have offbeat records such as private acts
of Congress been searched? Has the researcher screened other
records many years later in which some legal actions resurface?

This last question is not rhetorical. Colonel Robert Porterfield
was killed in the Revolution. His son Robert received from Congress
a warrant for "about 6,000 acres." But the land was in Kentucky
and from superior conflicting claims was lost. In 1860, Congress
authorized scrip for Robert's heirs, to whom 153 warrants
for forty acres each were issued. In 1900, twenty-one of these warrants
were still outstanding and unlocated for land given on Revolutionary War service.[20]

For background on bounty lands, see
National Archives, Guide to Genealogical Research in the National Archives (Washington, D.C.:
National Archives and Records Service, 1982), pp. 133-39;
Rudolf Freund, "Military Bounty Land and the Origins of the Public Domain,"
Agricultural History 20 (1946): 8-18;
Gates's "Military Bounty Land Policies," in his History of Public Land Law Development
(New York: Public Land Law Review Commission, 1968),pp. 249-84;
C. Lichtenberg, "Beginnings of the United States Military Land Bounty Policy, 1637-1812" (M.A. thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1945);
Paul V. Lutz, "Land Grants for Service in the Revolution," New-York Historical Society Quarterly 48 (1964):221-35;
Jean H. Vivian, "Military Land Bounties During the Revolutionary and Confederation Periods,"
Maryland Historical Magazine 61 (1966): 231-56;
A. M. Lingegren, The History of the Land Bonus of the War of 1812" (M.A. thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1922);
James W. Oberly, "Military Bounty Land Warrants of the Mexican War," Prologue 14 (1982): 25-34.

7. Virginia Military District

An extraordinary flood of Revolutionary bounty land warrants
poured from Richmond, partly because Virginia had the largest state
population and partly because it granted warrants not only to its
continental line but to its state line as well. The distinction rests
on who paid the troops, Congress or Virginia.

The first military reserve was created south of Green River
in Kentucky and subsequently expanded west of the Tennessee.
There were no bounty lands within present-day Virginia or West
Virginia. In 1784, Virginia ceded its claim to the area north of the
Ohio River, reserving the four million acres between the Scioto
and Little Miami rivers for redemption of its bounty land warrants.
This Virginia Military District in Ohio was federal land whose first title
land grants were reserved solely for the Virginia warrants of
veterans of the continental line. A series of ever more liberal acts
broadened where warrants could be used and by whom until in 1852
Congress agreed that all Virginia Revolutionary warrants could be
exchanged for scrip accepted at any GLO land office. Large numbers
of these assignable warrants were sold; an estimated one-quarter
of the Virginia Military District was acquired by twenty-five men.[21]
The paperwork flow was:
(1) warrant application to Richmond,
(2) warrant issued to warrantee,
(3) selection of desired land in Kentucky or Ohio reserves and survey by official surveyor,
(4) paperwork for Kentucky lands to the Virginia Land Office or from
1792, the Kentucky Land Office, or the federal capital for Ohio lands, and
(5) patent for Kentucky land sent to patentee or federal patent sent to Richmond for relay to Ohio patentee.[22]

Thus, there should be four major repositories today for Virginia
bounty land records. There are, however, actually six. The land
offices of Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio are described in the state
summaries at the end of this chapter. The microfilmed federal
patents are in the BLM Eastern States Office in Alexandria, Virginia.
The surrendered warrants are in Record Group 49 at the
Washington National Records Center in Suitland, Maryland. The
sixth major collection is the Illinois Historical Survey Collection in
the University of Illinois Library, Urbana-Champaign, which has
the papers of Richard Clough Anderson, surveyor of the Virginia
Military District in Ohio. Clifford Neal Smith has brought this collection
to the attention of a wide audience by his indexes in the
Federal Land Series, especially volume 4, which is devoted to the
district. He estimates that "about 64 percent of Virginia's obligations
to its. veterans were satisfied by the land grants in the Virginia
Military District of Ohio.[23]
See also
Cliffprd Neal Smith, "Virginia Land Grants in Kentucky and Ohio, 1784-1799,
National Genealogical Society Quarterly 61 (1973): 16-27;
John Salmon, "Revolutionary War Records in the Archives & Records Division of the Virginia State Library," Genealogy, no. 70 July 1982): 2-10;
Gaius Marcus Brumbaugh, Revolutionary War Records.. .Virginia Army and Navy Forces with
Bounty Land Warrants for Virginia Military Scrip; from Federal
and State Archives (Washington, D.C.: n.p., 1936);
Willard Rouse Jillson, Old Kentucky Entries and Deeds: A Complete Index to All
of the Earliest Land Entries, Military Warrants, Deeds and Wills
of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Filson Club Publication No. 34 (Louisville: Filson Club, 1926).

8. Loyalist Lands

The confiscation of Loyalist lands in the Revolution—what might
be called "negative bounty land"-is a subject that deserves both
extended research and a bibliographical source essay. What it
receives here are brief comments.

Since the British government made a commendable effort to
compensate Loyalist losses, the Loyalists had to list their lost property
to claim that compensation. One of the best sources is Alexander Fraser, ed.,
United Empire Loyalists Inquiry into the Losses
and Services in Consequence of Their Loyalty. Evidence in the Canadian Claims, 2vols.
(Toronto: The King's Printer, 1905),
Second Report of the Bureau of Archives for the province of Ontario. From
this excellent sourcebook comes the following example:The claim (p. 293) of John Fowler, formerly of Stockbridge,
Massachusetts, says he was a native of Guilford, Connecticut, lived
in Stockbridge, fled to New York during the war and hired a farm
on Long Island, was carried a prisoner to Stamford, Connecticut,
and ultimately settled in Kingston, Ontario. "Produces deed dated
19th July, 1770, whereby Mark Hopkins in considn. of £30 lawful
Conveys to Claimt. forty acres in Stockbridge. Says he purchased
35 acres adjoining, from his Br., in 1770 for about £25." And so
on. "Produces a letter from his Father in Law saying that his Personal
Property had been sold to the amount of £100 Lawful." Aside
from separating the various John Fowlers, this record helps fill a
page in the Fowler family genealogy.
Such claims name only a small percentage of Loyalists. Two
New Jersey studies revealed that of 275 known Loyalists ofBergen
County, only 29 claims could be found, while for the approximately
1,200 estates confiscated in New Jersey, there exist only 239
Loyalist claims.[24]

The official files of Loyalist claims are in the Public Record Office in London,
partly summarized in Peter Wilson Coldham,
American Loyalist Claims: Abstracted from the Public Record Office, Audit Series 13,
Bundles 1-35 & 37 (Washington, D.C.: National Genealogical Society, 1980).
The manuscript sources are identified in Gregory Palmer, ed., A Bibliography of Loyalist Source
Material in the United States, Canada, and Great Britain (Westport
and London: Meckler Publishing and the American Antiquarian
Society, 1982), a helpful book but one intended for experts. Another
bibliography which is useful but which may be hard to find is Robert
S. Alien, Loyalist Literature: An Annotated Bibliographic Guide to
the Writings on the Loyalists of the American Revolution (Toronto
and Charlettetown: Dundum Press, 1982). There is no comprehensive bibliography
to literature on confiscations of Loyalist estates.

One land record of potential help in identifying children is the
land given in Canada and Nova Scotia to Loyalists under royal instructions of 1783,
which promised 100 acres to heads of Loyalist families and fifty acres each to their children and to single men.

These records are dedicated to one of my best friends, my Uncle:
George K. ANNAN, 1915-1996, age 81yrs
Compiled and self Published in Jun. 28, 1986 by Paul R. Sarrett, Jr.
George, grew up in rual area of Yorktown, Page Co., Iowa. He was a large land owner,
and Farmer, and was
Commissioner on the Page County Soil Conservation District for over
30 years; Director of the Iowa Association of Soil Conservation District
Commissioners; Served on the State Soil Conservation Committee;
Member of the Lions Club of Clarinda, Iowa; Was a 4-H
leader for many years; Helped organize the Lincoln Leaders Boys 4-H Club.
Received many awards as a commissioner,
Outstanding Commissioner for Region VII in 1960;
Watershed Achievement Award in 1979;
Emmett ZOLLARS Award in 1974;
Page Co., Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Award in 1976;
just to name a few.

Would like any Corrections or Exchange and Share information on the BLM, contact me at:
E-Mail:
Paul R. Sarrett, Jr. Auburn, CA.